From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri May 31 19:12:29 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C032966
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 19:12:29 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from amvandemore@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-pd0-f176.google.com (mail-pd0-f176.google.com
 [209.85.192.176]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B4C8847
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 19:12:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pd0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r11so2656723pdi.21
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=lvB10zMNydXrix+R0rkc4HEKcVX0NIJa4/+CeuHYHX4=;
 b=dvFDZGouTGp7EGjINuXeQSidSAIzZMT/0ir4mO8apiqjn3U5Rfxbb/FVVRphCahpKi
 D/fU9XUTimB0l8fJ1rV7m0k1p8H2pfBahHXf1CNvEmZhI/7Xbj38UoMWZDe9wGHIl3YT
 O8AhhJ56FS6McUMpV8rAwzr/f8hrKGjhPritSPXks50pAUHBAfd6aYBMbq8gPXVlZ5YA
 3oEGiuBZKU3L7GcHOXrTqy3Vx+I7krHuNz3KBXhsqhXCEx1DR3Z2FkWyH3vn/kPWR1cm
 YmaZVSKdixbIwvJFEmAaXVAplGU+WnIPxeAoXhNbKbqoL9UXF6AFsVP3+ji4FQlkEOuk
 NVIg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.194.135 with SMTP id hw7mr14259501pbc.192.1370027548686; 
 Fri, 31 May 2013 12:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.31.195 with HTTP; Fri, 31 May 2013 12:12:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1370025660.3819.YahooMailNeo@web190701.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
References: <1370023798.22796.YahooMailNeo@web190704.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
 <20130531183152.GA847@tiny.Sisis.de>
 <1370025660.3819.YahooMailNeo@web190701.mail.sg3.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 14:12:28 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+tpaK31SjXthiQwhh+_BafgJVVPr=a8wf8+nvH_7FTqFHNhTg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: mount_smbfs in base?
From: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com>
To: Quark <unixuser2000-fbsd@yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de>,
 "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 19:12:29 -0000

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Quark <unixuser2000-fbsd@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I saw that, but suspected I must have done something stupid that those binaries got placed there.
>
>>
>>>  then what is extra in samba port?
>>
>> a SMB client and server
>
> so this SMB client is recentish than what is in base?

Yes.

> I 'guess' samba was GPL, is it OK to let live GPL s/w in base when such strides are being attempted to oust GCC?

mount_smbfs isn't GPL.

--
Adam Vande More